Approved Minutes - 2024-03-19 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
March 19, 2024
aRrr�o�
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. on Tuesday,
March 19, 2024. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person
in the Council Chamber at City Hall 380 A Avenue.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Corrigan,Afghan (via video conferencing,joined
the meeting at 3:04 p.m.), Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Rapf
Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder,
City Recorder; Nancy Niland, Volunteer and Special Events Coordinator;
Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director; Evan Boone,
Deputy City Engineer: Erica Rooney, Public Works Director I City
Engineer
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PRESENTATIONS
4.1 2024 Lake Oswego Reads.
Nancy Niland, Library Volunteer and Special Events Coordinator, presented via PowerPoint
the selection for the 18' annual Lake Oswego Reads, Honor by Thrity Umrigar, and provided
details on the Library's reading programs, partners, and events that would take place during April.
More information about the book selection and events was available via social media and on the
City's website.
Mayor Buck thanked Ms. Niland for the presentation and her work on the program, which had
become a celebrated annual event on the City's calendar.
4.2 Arbor Month Proclamation.
Mayor Buck proclaimed the month of April as Arbor Month in Lake Oswego. More information on
the proclamation as well as the events and activities planned to celebrate Arbor month was
available on the City's website and would be included in the April issue of Hello LO.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13
March 19, 2024
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
• Dianne Cassidy, resident, expressed concerns about illicit massage parlors, which were
also known as erotic massage parlors. The City had recently shut down one parlor, but a
second one remained and was housed in an office complex owned by Ms. Cassidy. A
website listed the massage parlor as advertising for special services. The number of such
massage parlors nationwide increased 32 percent between 2022 and 2023, and it was not
a victimless crime because it involved human trafficking. Cities had problems combatting
the illicit facilities because they opened as legitimate businesses and shutting them down
required cooperation with other agencies and proof of criminality. There were steps cities
could take to prevent the businesses from opening, and Lake Oswego should have strong
codes in place requiring massage parlors to have State licensing before the City provided
a business license. In addition, strong codes would give the City tools to go in and do
inspections and shut the parlors down without time-consuming police work.
Mayor Buck stated he appreciated Ms. Cassidy bringing the issue forward. It had been top
of mind for the City Council, which had been having internal discussions on the issue. Ms.
Cassidy confirmed she had emailed information, which included a city code toolkit and other
resources, to the City Council distribution email yesterday.
• Cheryl Uchida, resident, read her comments, which were also entered into the record,
about her concerns about the lack of civic engagement with neighborhood associations
regarding the community center.
Mayor Buck acknowledged the community center was a big project. The City was so early
in the process it had not even announced the community engagement plan, so Ms. Uchida
was ahead of the curve. Ms. Uchida replied the Neighborhood Association had reached out
to the Superintendent of the School District, whose reply included a copy of City Manager
Martha Bennett's proposal to the School District. The Association's next step would be to
attend the District's Facility Planning Committee. Mayor Buck assured Ms. Uchida that
when the City had a public engagement plan, it would include the Waluga, Lake Forest, and
Lake Grove Neighborhood Associations, as well as the entire community. Ms. Uchida
responded that the Waluga Neighborhood Association was not against the ambitious plans,
and recognized the adjacent neighborhood associations may be in favor of the plan.
• Jeff Gudman, Oswego Heritage Council Chair, presented the original peg from the Peg
Tree and shared its historical significance to Lake Oswego. He thanked Nancy Tongue for
her efforts in bringing the peg to the Oswego Heritage Council where it was now displayed,
and invited Councilors to become members of the Heritage Council. Councilors were
provided contact information for Mark Brown, a member of the Oswego Heritage Council
and its resident archivist, so Councilors could reach out with stories about their
participation in the City of Lake Oswego.
Mayor Buck asked Mr. Gudman to explain the piece on top of the peg. Mr. Gudman said it was
a portion of one of the tree branches. The peg was pounded into the side of the tree where a
lantern was hung on it.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
6.1 2024 City Council Goals and Initiatives Work Plans.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13
March 19, 2024
Motion: Move to approve the draft work plans for the 2024 City Council Initiatives.
6.2 Approving the Appointment of Expedited Land Division and Middle Housing Land
Division Referees.
Motion: Move to appoint Josh Soper and Joe Turner as Expedited Land Division and
Middle Housing Land Division Referees.
6.3 Diversified Abilities Custodian Contract Award.
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for custodial services
with Diversified Abilities for $262,031.64.
6.4 WO 323, Awarding a Public Improvement Contract for the Construction of the Daniel
Way Channel Stabilization Project.
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a Public Improvement Contract with
Daybreak Construction Inc. in the amount of $534,000 for the construction of Work Order
323, Daniel Way Channel Stabilization Project.
END CONSENT
Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Verdick seconded
the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Corrigan,
Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Rapf voting `aye', (7-0).
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 Ordinance 2938, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending LOC
Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for the Purpose of Clarifying and
Updating Various Provisions (2023); and Adopting Findings (LU 23-0036).
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney, reviewed the hearing procedures for the legislative land use
decision, and confirmed no Councilor had a financial conflict of interest.
Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director, presented the Staff Report via
PowerPoint and provided background of the annual Code amendments that included 16
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13
March 19, 2024
maintenance amendments and 4 policy amendments. The amendments this year focused on
maintenance-type amendments due to Staff turnover as well as to avoid inadvertently introducing
Code amendments that would affect the work being done on the Housing Production Strategy or
create barriers to housing. Details on each amendment, along with Staff annotations that provided
background and reasoning behind each amendment, were clearly outlined in the Staff Report.
Councilor Verdick expressed concern about the clarity of wording in the Historic Preservation
Code regarding accessory structures and asked if the wording could be more straightforward.
Director Numanoglu explained-a few years ago, the City made significant amendments to its
Historic Preservation Code, but clarity regarding the categorization of accessory structures was
lost during the redrafting process. The proposed amendment aimed to address this by stating that
constructing an accessory structure to a historical structure would be considered a minor
alteration. The confusion regarding the current wording of the minor alteration definition, which is
set up in the negative. For example, it stated, "A minor alteration is not," followed by a list of
threshold criteria. Staff suggested amending the language to state that if something did not qualify
as a minor alteration, it would be considered a major alteration to make the language clearer. If
the Council agreed, Staff could return with the clarified language in the findings.
Councilor Wendland asked why cottage clusters were exempt from impervious surface
standards. Director Numanoglu replied the City could not apply impervious surface standards
due to the State Model Code, but cottage clusters did have to comply with other City standards.
Councilor Wendland asked if the common wall minimum for duplexes, fourplexes, and triplexes
could be increased from the 25 percent, noting that when discussing the Middle Housing Code
changes, Council wanted to preserve the character of neighborhoods and ensure properties with
multiple residences maintain the appearance of single-family homes to avoid creating
neighborhoods with starkly varying buildings like some areas in Portland. Director Numanoglu
responded that adjusting the common wall minimum would be within the Council's purview. The
proposed 25 percent in the existing Code, but Council could choose to increase it any percentage
it deemed appropriate. Before Middle Housing was created, it used to be considered multifamily,
and the Code definition simply stated, "it shares common walls and ceilings," without specifying
any minimum percentage requirement. Staff believed adding a minimum was important while
staying within the existing Code parameters; however, Council could come up with a different
percentage.
Councilor Wendland understood that a townhouse would not typically be on a single-family lot.
Director Numanoglu replied the City currently allowed townhouse projects on any single-family
lot. Typically, each townhouse unit would be located on its own lot. A subdivision would be done
to create the lots for the townhomes, which would share common walls She confirmed
townhouses had to be connected by a minimum of 25 percent. The townhouse across the street
had 100 percent connection, but some townhouses were connected only by the garages so there
were many different styles. Councilor Wendland understood the setback requirements, which
was a great catch and a good add, but was concerned that duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes
on single-family lots would look out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested
the minimum connection be increased to 50 percent, though that might be arbitrary.
Mayor Buck understood that in some cases it may be impossible for townhouses to have 100
percent connection based on the shape of the lot. He favored more flexibility and better design.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13
March 19, 2024
Councilor Wendland agreed 100 percent was too much because the building would be a box
and not look right.
Councilor Corrigan commented that defining a dwelling as attached by not being detached
looked at the issue inside out, and found instances where houses were considered attached
despite being two feet apart to be unsustainable and a waste of energy and land. The City of
Bend's Code used a 25 percent common wall minimum, but specified where the attachment must
occur: the wall of enclosed interior space of a dwelling unit and may include the walls of attached
garages. It did not include porches, patios, steps, or stoops. She had found pictures of a triplex
that looked like a single-family home that would address concerns about neighborhood character.
She asked if Staff had considered addressing the issue by being more specific about the location
of shared walls. Director Numanoglu replied she did not have the information available, but
confirmed the City did specify that the common wall should consist of a structural wall, which
precluded attachment by a porch. Staff could look into the issue further to investigate more
specific language if the Council wanted.
Councilor Wendland believed Council wanted language in the Code that would maintain the
look of the neighborhood, so buildings were not outliers. Mayor Buck noted the Planning
Commission minutes seemed to show that's what the Commission had in mind when it approved
the changes.
Mayor Buck noted the change to move the testimony deadline for closed City Council record
appeals to two days before Council met would mean Council would receive the material Friday at
noon if the Council met on Tuesdays. He asked when Council would receive the information
because currently, Council sometimes received it right before the meeting, which meant Staff had
vetted the information, but Councilors did not have time for review. Director Numanoglu replied
that the Council receiving materials before noon on the day of the hearing was not Codified, but
only an internal practice. Mayor Buck understood moving the deadline from Tuesday at noon to
the Friday before would solve the issue. Director Numanoglu said Staff could change the internal
practice but that would not require a Code amendment.
Mayor Buck confirmed there were no further questions from Councilors for Staff and opened the
public hearing.
Public Testimony:
• Carole Ockert, Neighborhood Chairs Committee (NCC), presented testimony via
PowerPoint asking the City Council to insert an interpretation into the Code to clarify the Code
definition for attached, specifically that the term, "nearby structures" meant any accessory
structures to the associated subject structure, summarizing NCC's support for a minimum of
75 percent attachment of common walls for duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes; and
requesting the City to require common courtyards to be held in joint ownership tract that
included everyone in the development equally.
• Stacy Houser, First Addition resident, supported Ms. Ockert's testimony that requested the
City Council amend or interpret the Code to accommodate a true common space for cottage
clusters and asked that Council ensure the Code maintained consistent neighborhood look,
feel, and sense of shared community. She expressed concerns that the Code was not clear
that cottage clusters must satisfy Cottage Cluster Code as well as Street and Fire Codes, and
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13
March 19, 2024
that codes must be applied considering existing property lines, not ones that would potentially
be in effect. In the maps presented for the 233 E Avenue cottage cluster development, it
appeared that the street would not be wide enough to accommodate fire truck width, or car
width, coinciding with potential street parking in the space.
Mayor Buck confirmed there was no further public testimony and closed the public hearing.
Councilor Wendland moved to tentatively approve Ordinance 2938 and direct Staff to
return on April 2, 2024, with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and
conclusions for LU 23-0036. Councilor Rapf seconded the motion.
Councilor Afghan believed NCC had good points regarding the attached/detached definition, 25
percent versus 75 percent, and having the common area be defined rather than be the developer's
definition.
Mayor Buck stated the Council appreciated the comments regarding the common area, but
understood the common area was not part of the amendments before the Council at this hearing.
Director Numanoglu said that was correct. Ms. Ockert provided testimony on behalf of NCC and
the FAN/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association during the second Planning Commission work
session as well as the public hearing. She did notify Staff of the courtyard issue in September of
2023, about a month before the first Planning Commission work session. At that point, Staff
checked with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to determine
whether the City could require that a common courtyard be put into a tract. Right now, the builder
or developer of a middle housing land division could include an easement for the common
courtyard, or the common courtyard could be in a separate tract. The City would accept either.
Ms. Ockert advocated for the City to require the courtyard to be only in a tract and that the tract
be managed by a common homeowners' association (HOA). DLCD informed Staff the Model
Code did mention easements as well as tracts but were not sure whether the City could require
one over the other and suggested Staff should check with the City Attorney's Office. Deputy City
Attorney Evan Boone believed the City could require one or the other, but he did not believe the
City could require an HOA and wished to look into it further.After the Staff received the information
from the DLCD and Deputy Attorney Boone, they investigated what other cities did. Staff's
concern was to avoid introducing something into the Code that got ahead of the housing
production strategy work and could complicate development. Neither the City of Portland or the
City of Bend required cottage clusters to be in a tract or within an easement. It was the choice of
the builder or developer. The City of Portland suggested that requiring an HOA for a tract, it would
run afoul of the whole purpose of the middle housing land division to provide an alternative to the
condominiumization process, which did require an HOA. Condominiumization was done at the
State level, not the City level, but Staff understood it was a cumbersome process. Given the
complications, Staff declined including courtyard tracts in the Code amendments and notified Ms.
Ockert it would be included in the next round of Code amendments for consideration. Staff also
let her know she could bring the issue forward to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The other consideration was that, under the City's current Code, the City could still require as
conditions of approval of a middle housing land division that the developer not allow
encroachment into the common area, and that the common area be available to all the cottage
cluster owners regardless of whether the owners had actual frontage on the common area. The
City could easily put that requirement in Code regardless of whether the common area was in a
tract or easement, and it was enforceable. Staff believed the City already had those mechanisms
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13
March 19, 2024
in place to address those concerns so did not feel this was an urgent issue that needed to be
added to the Code amendments. The Council had the purview to do so if it wished.
Mayor Buck commented it seemed like a good concern to address, and suggested Staff check
with other jurisdictions with cottage clusters to determine whether the concern had played out in
real life. Anecdotally, HOAs in town had a difficult time maintaining themselves, maintenance was
onerous, and shared areas had fallen by the wayside because of the difficult structure and the
lack of people who wanted to serve on the HOAs.
Councilor Mboup asked how some residents could own areas of the common area. Director
Numanoglu clarified when cottage clusters were on one lot with one owner who rented out the
cottages, everything was in common ownership. The issue arose when there was a middle
housing land division, which was solely for the purpose of breaking up the lots to sell off each of
the cottages, allowing for individual ownership. If there was a middle housing land division in
which the common area was not in a separate tract, the City could put easements over the
courtyard area to specify it as a common area for use by all the cottage clusters, regardless of
frontage, and that it had to be maintained by all the owners. The easement would also be noted
on the property titles. The City could also add conditions of approval to prevent encroachments
as part of the middle housing land division process, which were enforceable by Staff.
Councilor Wendland liked the easement idea and asked how insurance would work in that
arrangement. Director Numanoglu noted instead of open-space tracts, the City used to allow
conservation easements, which were sometimes available for residents to use as a pathway
through the development or park. She was not sure how the easement would work, but it must
work because there were easements throughout the city. Deputy City Attorney Boone noted
insurance was meant to protect people from negligence in their actions, or omissions to act and
not related to the title of a property. Title frequently was used as a placeholder as to who had an
obligation to act upon property in order to manage it, but when dealing with easements where a
property owner had an obligation to maintain the easement area as a common property, if the
property owners did not maintain it as a collective association, they would each have their own
individual liability for that. The property owner of each lot in the cottage cluster had an undivided
right to use the easement as well as an undivided obligation to maintain the easement for the
common usage. Each owner had an obligation to maintain the common area in a non-negligent
manner. An easement was a property interest, and each owner owned an easement interest.
Councilor Afghan said it was unclear to him how it would work, but he had respect for private
property ownership so he would let the developers and lawyers figure the issue out. NCC had
stepped forward to highlight the issue, and the City often had to get involved to determine which
Code was being violated.
Mayor Buck confirmed the 25 percent common wall standard was a minimum standard in the
current Code, not a maximum or absolute standard, and that townhomes, and so forth had been
built under this standard. He asked if the Planning Commission had discussed increasing the
percentage. Director Numanoglu replied Ms. Ockert had testified at the Planning Commission
on the same subject and heard her suggestion of a higher percentage. The Commission elected
not to move forward with that suggestion, and the reasons for their decision may be addressed in
findings or the meeting minutes. She recalled the Planning Commission understood the 25
percent minimum was in the existing Code and it allowed for some flexibility. Staff had proposed
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13
March 19, 2024
the 25 percent minimum believing it was conservative because it was more flexible, but there was
no particular reason to keep the standard at 25 percent. If Council felt strongly that it should be a
higher percentage, that was supportable, and Staff did not have any objection.
Councilor Afghan asked why Staff did not consider adding the definition of an attached unit.
Director Numanoglu replied that the current Code said a structure was considered to be
attached if it was separated by less than three feet. Ms. Ockert believed Staff interpreted the Code
a different way, but Staff was reading the plain language of the Code, which was clear and
objective. Ms. Ockert was correct that the Code language was aimed at accessory structures,
which in some cases were erected so close the primary structure the eaves overlapped. Though
the structures appeared attached, the owners were benefitting from the detached accessory
structure setbacks, which were less than those for attached structures. The definition of detached
was meant to guard against the accessory structures that appeared to be attached and did not
specify it only applied to accessory structures, which was something that could be added for
clarity.
Mayor Buck noted the Planning Commission minutes indicated the Commission's discussed
doing 25 percent common wall or allowing the detached wall, which two Commissions favored,
so their conversation centered around going less than 25 percent to provide flexibility for good
options. City Manager Bennett commented that some of the best duplex designs happened on
corner lots where front doors faced opposite streets and looked like single-family homes. First
Addition and Old Town both had examples of duplexes that blended well into the community,
some of which were attached only by the garage. Staff would want to look at the impact of 75
percent would be on corner lot development before Council considered changing the minimum.
Mayor Buck agreed the City should not approve a random percentage, especially given the
Planning Commission's vetting and the fact that there were examples of good products using the
existing standards.
Councilor Wendland asked if the Code would apply consistently to duplexes, triplexes,
quadplexes and single-family houses. Director Numanoglu clarified the proposal would change
the definition specifically for duplex, triplex, and quadplex to make it clear the units had to be
physically attached and for a minimum percentage. The change would not affect single-family
homes, which would remain subject to the current definition of detached that allowed accessory
structures to be considered detached if they were three feet or more away. Councilor Wendland
confirmed a triplex would be able to construct a detached garage in the same manner as a single-
family home. He believed the consistency of look, rather than function, helped maintain the
character of the neighborhood. As long as the City was consistent in that the language required
the same standards for a triplex and a single-family home, it would meet the housing objectives
aimed at increasing housing as well as maintaining neighborhood character.
Councilor Corrigan agreed Council wished to maintain the neighborhood character, but believed
it was more than a percentage: it was in the language of the way the shared or attached wall must
be. She would like Staff to look at Bend's Development Code and consider how it might fit in Lake
Oswego, because it was working well in that city.
Councilor Verdick asked if a garage added to a single-family house within three feet of the
primary structure was considered attached. Director Numanoglu replied it would be considered
attached if the garage and house were separated by less than three feet, measured from eave to
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13
March 19, 2024
eave. Councilor Verdick sought further clarification in the Code because most people thought of
attached as sharing a structural wall. City Manager Bennett explained that building an accessory
structure within three feet required larger setbacks. Owners would find a way to push accessory
structures farther away to have a shorter setback requirement. People who want a detached
accessory structure would make sure it was detached, so it could be closer to the property line. It
was an old problem within the Code; people did not build accessory structures close to primary
structures. The Code may need to be cleaned up, but this issue could be addressed later.
Councilor Verdick said she was fine as long as it got put on the list to be addressed.
Councilor Verdick wanted to be sure the City cleaned up the language on minor alterations to
historic structures. Director Numanoglu stated the proposed change would add language to the
definition of minor alternation (historic)that specified that if the change did not meet the definition
of minor alternation, it was considered a major alternation. Councilor Verdick commented that
the language should clarify, not alter, the meaning of the Code, so that building designers,
architects, and homeowners understood what they could and could not do.
City Manager Bennett clarified that right now, the Code defined what a minor alternation was
not, and the request was to add a sentence to clarify that anything that did not qualify as a minor
alternation was considered a major alternation. Because the language was not in the Ordinance
now, she would get advice from the Deputy City Attorney on what was necessary to bring the
Ordinance back with revised language. She did not believe it would require DLCD notice. Staff
needed to know the Council's intention in order to write the language.
Councilor Verdick moved to amend the original motion by including an amendment to
Ordinance 2938 to change the definition of a minor alteration to historic preservation, by
adding a sentence to clarify that anything that did not qualify as a minor alteration was
considered a major alteration. Councilor Wendland seconded the motion.
Mayor Buck recognized Councilor Corrigan's comments regarding the Bend Code but
understood a continuation would be required to allow for Staff analysis. He asked if Councilor
Corrigan's was concerned the Code did not address shared walls, noting Lake Oswego's Code
was specific to structural walls and defined attached as touching. Councilor Corrigan said she
wanted multi-unit residences to fit in and look like houses. Mayor Buck believed the Council
shared her vision.
A voice vote was held, and the amendment to the original motion passed, with Mayor Buck
and Councilors Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Rapf voting `aye', (7-0).
A roll call vote was held, and the original motion with the amendment passed, with Mayor
Buck and Councilors Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Rapf voting `aye',
(7-0).
Council took a recess from 4:40 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.
9. STUDY SESSION
9.1 Mitigation Requirements for Single-Family and Duplex Development (PP 24-0001).
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13
March 19, 2024
Director Numanoglu presented the Council Report via PowerPoint, reviewing the background
and purpose of the proposal to require public improvements as mitigation for the impacts of new
single-family and duplex development, and describing constructability considerations for frontage
improvements; the potential for increasing frontage improvements; and local improvement district
(LID) and fee-in-lieu options when constructing improvements was not possible.
Erica Rooney, Public Works Director I City Engineer, continued the presentation, reviewing
several case studies of public improvement projects and the challenges related to the new
frontage requirements, as well as a table comparing potential improvement options. Staff sought
feedback and direction on the plan to exact mitigation from single-family and duplex development.
Mayor Buck appreciated the report and the research conducted, particularly the insights gained
from conversations with other cities and the on-the-ground illustrations. The most successful
projects were comprehensive rather than piecemeal, and there were other difficulties associated
with implementing piecemeal improvements. Fee-in-lieu programs could help the City accumulate
funds for larger, comprehensive improvements, and similar programs had been effective in other
cities, such as Milwaukie. The City needed to exact mitigation at the time of development, rather
than deferring exactions.
Several Councilors commented in favor of the fee-in-lieu program and requested further details
about how the program would work.
Councilor Wendland believed the mitigation requirements were in direct conflict with City and
State goals to reduce housing costs and would hurt the city long-term. Only about 40 new houses
were built in Lake Oswego in 2023,which was a steep decline from the average and could indicate
housing was getting too expensive to develop. He would rather increase the Street Fund so
everyone would contribute to strategic road and pathway improvements rather than just people in
new development. Fees-in-lieu had many challenges, including being limited for use within in a
certain area and certain time period. He declared for the record that he had seen the Hallinan
Street and Boca Ratan Drive pathway projects, noting the City had done a fantastic job on those
projects.
Mayor Buck noted three homes on Knaus paid for all the improvements on the corner, while
homes down the street paid nothing, so the fees-in-lieu program was inconsistent.
Councilor comments and questions were addressed by Staff as noted:
• Director Rooney confirmed the City did not exact improvements on about half of major land
divisions and received a Low Impact Develop (LID)waiver instead. A fee-in-lieu system would
collect monies from those land divisions, and Staff understood that was how the program was
applied in Milwaukie and Portland, as well.
• Deputy City Attorney Boone explained the City had to show fee-in-lieu money was being
used for a project that mitigated the impact of development and the length of time the funds
could be held for a project varied. A case in Maryland found six years, while California, which
had adopted a statutory process to implement the Nollan-Dolan test and conducted a five-
year forecast to determine whether the dollars exacted from development were still needed
for projects to mitigate the development. There did not appear to be a 15-year maximum time
limit, though Lake Oswego could set up the system with a 10-to-15-year time frame.
California's system of forecasting kept the perspective fresh.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13
March 19, 2024
• Regarding concerns about what area the fee-in-lieu funds could be used in and how zones
were set up, he proposed the City establish projects and then identify the properties to tap
for funds as well as a process in which property owners would have the opportunity to say
the project did not mitigate their development.
• Director Rooney said the cost for missing street and stormwater improvements was probably
in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Pedestrian facility needs identified in the Transportation
System Plan (TSP) totaled a couple of hundred million, and those projects did not include all
the missing pieces.
• Stormwater infiltration could occur if there was adequate space to detain water before it
infiltrated. However, due to Lake Oswego's compact layout, limited space was available
for infiltration. Flash events generating a large volume of water would require storage
before percolation, but in many cases, there was not enough space within existing right-
of-way areas to accommodate this need and, as a result, most stormwater needed to be
conveyed. Currently, most stormwater was conveyed by existing pipes or ran down the
side of the road in areas where there was no pipe system.
• Director Numanoglu confirmed partial improvement projects did occur as a result of
exactions on middle housing development. However, mitigation costs for that development
were divided among more units. The cost impact to single-family development was greater.
• Deputy Attorney Boone clarified funds collected by a fee-in-lieu program must be used to
mitigate the impact of the development that paid the fee. The area the funds could be used in
had to be worked out and the farther the area was from the development, the more tenable
the situation became. The City looked at each development application and determined where
the impacts of the development were. In some cases, the impacts were in the block face, but
in other cases, such as for larger developments, the area may be larger.
• City Manager Bennett stated that even with a fee-in-lieu system, the mitigation zone would
be determined on a case-by-case basis because every neighborhood in Lake Oswego
developed in a different way, and so the impacts of single-family development on the
transportation or stormwater system was different with every development. It would not get
engineering Staff out of some level of case-by-case.The City may be able to say the mitigation
zone in the First Addition Neighborhood (FAN)was the entire neighborhood because the area
was a grid. In the Goodall neighborhood, the funds would probably be spent on the street
frontage.
• Deputy Attorney Boone emphasized the importance of establishing a clear process before
initiating a project and tapping into funds. This process would involve notifying property
owners that their contributions are being used for a specific project and providing them with
an opportunity to voice concerns regarding the project's impact mitigation.
• Director Rooney explained contributions of $20,000 each by one or two houses in a
neighborhood could be used on an existing project four blocks away in the same
neighborhood to purchase something like a stormwater planter. Councilor Wendland
believed the program could prompt litigation.
• Director Rooney stated that Portland began its program in 2016 by identifying unimproved
local streets and then focused on three neighborhoods with approximately 10 targeted
improvement projects. The City collected fee-in-lieu funds to finance projects within
designated project areas. This process required significant administrative setup, including
defining zones, impact areas, and project identification. Homes in a specific neighborhood
should primarily fund improvements within that area and the monies could not be used in other
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13
March 19, 2024
areas without justification. Despite Portland's size, it collected around $1.1 million annually,
while facing $15 million in identified projects. The process was slow and was sometimes
supplemented with other funds.
Mayor Buck confirmed Councilors wanted Staff to continue investigating the fee-in-lieu program.
He noted the concerns expressed by Councilor Wendland regarding impact to the cost of housing,
but the City had a system now where some people paid, and some did not. The program also
meant additional workload for Staff, which was part of the analysis.
City Manager Bennett reminded that the process would take 6 to 9 months at a minimum,
clarifying that Staff's analysis would include assessing how much could be collected from a fee-
in-lieu program and determining the related administrative costs.
10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Councilor Afghan updated the Council on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts that
included nonprofit organizations, the City's DEI Board, and the Parks and Recreation Department,
which had an integrated system that kept DEI in Lake Oswego's parks and parks programs. The
3,000-year-old holiday of Nowruz, also called Perian New Year or Iranian New Year, began that
evening. The holiday, recognized by 300 million people around the world, meant "new day" in
Farsi and symbolized renewal and the beginning of spring. He wished the citizens of Lake Oswego
and fellow Councilors a Happy Nowruz.
Councilor Mboup provided a summary of a recent trip to Washington D.C. with some fellow
Councilors and members of the Youth Leadership Council (YLC). A former member of Lake
Oswego's YLC facilitated a tour of the Pentagon. The group also toured Capitol Hill, witnessed a
house vote, visited the White House, saw the President, and met members of Oregon's
congressional delegation.
Councilor Wendland added he was impressed with the members of the YLC, adding Staff was
exceptional and had kept the group organized. It was an honor to spend time with the YLC and
experience the historical sites of the Washington D.C. which offered insights into the country's
founding. The trip also highlighted how fortunate residents of Lake Oswego were; other places in
the country had no clean water, no police force, no fire response, and no money for infrastructure.
Mayor Buck agreed it was a successful trip. The group lobbied on the City's League of Oregon
Cities positions, including Public Facilities and Service Fees (PFAFs). He was surprised to learn
how many communities in Oregon still did not have broadband internet.
11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
There were no reports of officers
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 6:14 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13
March 19, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
2(rAi yi.4.4142
Kari Linder, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on May 21, 2024.
( Jos :k,(
Mayor
,ate
•
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13
March 19, 2024